New Experiment Generates Apparent Excess Heat

The reader is invited to provide criticism of the following report to help determine any potential errors. I have been waiting on presenting these results in full since the experiment was performed on 3/24/15 and 3/25/15, but have made mention of the results in comments. I am not completely certain of the results, but the results seem strong in light of findings by other experimenters. Follow-up experiments will be performed using mass calorimetry.

Alexander Parkhomov in his most recent replication of Andrea Rossi’s Hot Cat, reported a maximum COP of 3.2. This present experiment departs from my previous experiments in that the fuel is kept consistent with Parkhomov’s method (nickel powder and lithium aluminum hydride only). A new control system was used in the present experiment utilizing PWM (pulse width modulation), two solid-state relays, and a PID controller.

Experiment

An alumina tube measuring 1/4″ ID and 3/8″ OD by 9″ long was utilized for the reactor tube (closed one end). The open end was sealed with a brass compression fitting. Five inches of the internal tube space was taken up with an alumina rod and additional space was taken up by a CaO/Alumina powder mix. Power input levels were measured by a home energy monitor.

Figure A. Reactor Tube Covered with Insulation

Reactor Tube Covered with Insulation

The compression fitting did not form a completely hermetic seal as hydrogen was detected with a combustible gas detector. Parkhomov demonstrated that very high pressures are unnecessary, and that the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure after 1000C. Thus, a perfectly hermetic seal may not be necessary.

In the initial phase of the experiment, only the PWM and single SSR were used. Unfortunately, this did not provide enough fine control to get calibration points. Additionally, it was discovered that the PC-based thermocouple transducer only recorded temperatures up to 1022C. As such, the thermocouple was connected to a PID controller, which has a maximum temperature reading of 1275C. Based on previous calibrations using heat flux measurements, this initial phase produced COPs in the range of 1.4 to 1.5 over a period of approximately 3 hours. Temperatures exceeded 1275C, which was the limit of the PID controller’s measurement capabilities.

At this point, the power was turned off. An additional SSR was added in concert with a PID controller (which was previously being used only for temperature measurements). In this time period, the cell temperature dropped to 230C. The experiment was resumed in Phase II with 3 calibration points below 1100C (600C, 800C, 1000C). The PID controller was set to those levels and the energy monitor was reset once a stable temperature line was obtained at the target temperature. The total energy used while maintaining a temperature level was used to calculate the average power input at each temperature level.

Results:

At temperatures exceeding 1100C, COP values ranged from 1.4 to 1.8 based on the calibration curve from the lower temperatures of the reaction tube. Based on previous calibrations of heat flux measurements, COPs ranged from 1.3 to 1.8 (1.05 to 1.5 based on a re-calibration run). The tube was observed visually in order to make a subjective comparison between the expected color temperature for 1200C and the incandescent tube color. The color of incandescence was consistent with temperatures in the range of 1200C. This experiment used two separate ways of measuring COP, which yielded reasonably consistent results. Phase II lasted approximately 4 hours, bringing the total time for apparent excess heating to 7 hours. The experiment ended with a failure of the resistance heating wire.

Chart A. COP Observations.

Note that apparent excess heating is the lowest based on the re-calibration run that was performed after the active experiment.

Chart B. Input Power by Temperature

The orange dots indicate observations of temperature an input power that occurred for temperatures >1100C. The blue dots and line are the observations for temperatures/power below 1100C.

Chart C. Input Power by Temperature (Axes Reversed)

Some find the reversed view more beneficial for analysis.

Re-calibration:

The heat flux measurements were taken from a previous experiment utilizing a triac dimmer. Because of uncertainty about the effects of this circuitry on the power measurements, another calibration trial was run with the same control system used above. An empty alumina tube was utilized with a similar resistance coil used in Experiment 1. Four calibration temperatures were utilized (600, 800, 1000, and 1150C).

Chart D. Heat Flux Re-Calibration

Discussion:

Consistent with the findings of Alexander Parkhomov, this experiment demonstrated apparent excess heating in temperature regions above 1100C utlizing two separate sets of measurements (heat flux and calibration curve for the tube temperature below 1100C). The COP values ranged from 1.3 to 1.8 based on the reaction tube surface temperature and 1.05 to 1.5 based on the re-calibration of heat flux. I invite the reader to criticize this work so that we may determine if these results are related to LENR or related to some unrecognized error.

Appendix:

Additional charts and information will be added here as requested.

Chart E. Heat Flux by Reaction Tube Temperature

Chart F. Inclusion of 0,0 points

48 Responses to New Experiment Generates Apparent Excess Heat

Jack, I was reviewing your chart ‘D’ that shows the recalibration curve. It would seem logical to include the point of 0 power, 0 heat flux among the set you are using. Perhaps you can add that extra data point and see what it does to your curve fit? I notice that the last calibration shows the constant term as being much smaller than for the first calibration. This appears to be moving in the right direction.

Do you know of a good reason why the (0,0) point should not be valid?

Have you performed additional experiments during the last few weeks that you feel comfortable reporting?

I’ve done it both ways in the past with the 0,0 point. The reason I exclude it is because it wasn’t technically measured. While it is obviously a logical point to include, the chart implies measurements. I’m not sure which is better. I added a Chart F with a 0,0 point. It also includes data from an additional experiment that was hastily done and did not include CaO for taking up some of the extra space in the tube.

I have done additional experiments with the induction/calorimetry system. I am still trying to grasp the behavior of this system. It appears, and I stress *appears*, that I am seeing excess heating at much lower temperatures. For example, the day 2 run took ~1/2 the power to maintain a temperature of 180C compared to day 1. But again, I still have a lot to learn about this new setup and may discover something else explains the results.

Jack regarding LENR, the experiments you are doing and information you are sharing I want to thank you for grounding the science for me, in a way of making me confident a normal sane individual is working on this science in a factually based way of understanding.

Although the science is interesting and novel the people involved from the onset have questionable observations and also apparently skewed views regarding honesty and progress in the field of LENR.

The difficult thing to understand is the people side and their sanity regarding certain issues. This morning I was reading through ECN thread and an attorney for a firm that I know from past experience wrote comments and I posted them below. I would like to know your professional take on people interested in the science of LENR and the comments as this supposed believer had to say. As an inventor of machinery I simply see this as a mechanical challenge (LENR Reactor) and the science I count on well grounded individuals which you have been the leader in this field as I view it, open minded, and very patient i.e. disclosure of claimed observation.

I get questioning in my mind when I read posts of others that use the type of words to hang on others so I reposted this comment to you in respect, I mentioned your name.

Quotes from a self proclaimed wealthy man that had went to a high end school and claims to be educated.

Ransompw Quotes this thread;

April 24, 2015 at 11:54 pm
“You are worse than Rossi”

April 25, 2015 at 6:28 am
“Everyone but this collection of retards”

April 25, 2015 at 12:00 am
“I don’t really have time for you idiots”

“But you idiots post”

“Don’t you all see how pathetic you are”

April 25, 2015 at 4:58 am
“What they are pondering is your sanity”

“you are just here for the giggles”

“you really don’t think Al is sane.”

April 25, 2015 at 6:23 am
“are you really that crazy”

April 25, 2015 at 5:08 am
“My lawyerly standards”

“The BS posted here”

“So F’n what”

“what Rossi says to idiots”

“find me some dude”

“stop bothering everyone with your nonsense”

AND THE WINNER IS:

“Don’t you all see how pathetic you are”

And new word of the day “PRIVITY”

Ransompw is that really how you want us to know you here in the Lunar Bin? An arrogant, self proclaimed wealthy man with an education? I am going to send this to my friend Jack Cole just to see what a professional Doctor has to say when people write these types of name calling, bad words and simply not pleasurable to read your comments that are directed to others that are commenting on this site ECN.com simply writing what they think about this subject.

Thanks Dale. My recommendation regarding the fellow you cite is to simply ignore them. In the past I would try to struggle against a person like that, but find my time is better spent struggling *for* something positive rather than against something negative.

Dave: I get what you are saying if the main heat transfer mechanism from the core region to the heater coil region is via conduction. I’m not sure the argument works as well if a significant amount of heat is moved in this area by radiation and/or convection, however. The beauty of the heat flux measurement that Jack is using is that these things don’t matter as long as the system is quasi steady state. ie. it doesn’t matter how the heat reaches the flux sensor layer or how it leaves it. Heat flow through the sensor layer is forced to be radial conduction and delta T will capture that flow nicely.

Bob, the measurements performed by Jack very clearly demonstrate that the core generated heating has a greater effect upon the thermocouple reading than heating due to the electrical coils. If both contributed equally to the temperature rise then the total would remain constant and the heat flux would remain the same as more and more core power generation takes place. Of course I am assuming that the PID controller is adjusted properly and maintains the sense thermocouple temperature constant.

I consider this a wonderful result and a test environment that is capable of proving that the source of the excess heat is somewhere other than the heating coils. A change in power from within the coils must always correlate with a change in heat flux that is in the same direction. By this I mean an increase in coil power always results in an increase in heat flux through the exterior of the device.

Dave: I think we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways. The operative equation at quasi steady state says the heat generated + heat input at coils = heat flux leaving system through the sensor layer. If the calibration is done without heat generation then any deviation during the fueled run is the result of internal heat generation.

Bob, I agree with your statement that the heat flux is the sum of the core generation and the heater powers. That is a reasonable assumption to make with proper calibration.

My theory that the total system heat flux should typically go down as more power is generated within a core whos temperature is held constant by a PID controller is an important addition to the original expectation that we both accept. It should also be noted that if the core power begins to fall the heat flux will rise! This behavior is contrary to what appears logical to most people.

Feedback can cause very odd behavior in systems and can be confusing. Anyone that is not aware of this effect might conclude that their measurements are completely in error.

I am reviewing your curves which I find quite interesting. Could you explain how you define heat flux and how it is measured. I usually think of power but the input does not seem to match the output below the Parkhomov levels.

Congratulations to you for your work and now lets hope that the excess heat can be obtained for long enough to eliminate chemical processes.

The heat flux measurement is a Delta T across a poor thermal conductor (ceramic insulation). There is a temperature sensor below and above this barrier. Beneath that, is the steel top of the tube furnace.

Scroll down into the comments in the following post and you will see some pictures of the setup including the placement of the temperature sensors for heat flux and ceramic insulation.

I added another chart for you to look at. See Chart E above in the Appendix. I was concerned when I saw this chart initially because the heat flux was less in the Rossi/Parkhomov zone. Then I read your work on Vortex about the possibility that the devices could radiate less heat because the controller is reducing the input to the electrical heating (but the excess heating is being generated in the core).

It would be helpful if you could supply a sketch showing the radial position of the various thermocouples involved in the Appendix graph.

If I’m understanding things correctly, you have same heat flux over a range of tube surface temperatures. If I understand your apparatus heat is leaving the core radially by a combination of conduction, convection and radiation. At the thin transducer layer heat is only moving radially via conduction. Outside this layer heat is moved away by a combination of convection, radiation and conduction. I suppose it is possible that the relative contributions of the various heat moving processes at the core could change with surface temperature, but it is curious that the total amount of heat being moved didn’t change. Are we seeing a thermal inertia transient effect? In one post you indicated that the excess heat zone was on the order of several hours in length. During your calibrations what was the length of time the system took to reach equilibrium after a input change?

Jack, Your Chart E appears to support my theory that the heat flux flowing out of the tube furnace will actually drop as the PID controller adjusts the input electrical heating power downwards to keep the inner core temperature constant. This should be seen whenever excess power is generated within the core region as you appear to show within your chart.

I consider your measurement as fairly solid proof that heat power is being generated within the core since this type of action could not occur otherwise. Your calibration curve represents the behavior expected when no excess core power is present.

It seems contrary to common sense to see less total heat flux at a higher core power generation level, but that is exactly what I am anticipating.

Congratulations and keep up the good work. Do you wish to report your findings on vortex? I think it is important for others to see that your work matches my theory in this particular characteristic.

We still must determine that the effect is nuclear instead of some chemical process.

Here goes a very short explanation. You can refer to vortex for much more detailed information.

There will typically exist a thermal resistance between the core thermocouple and the heating coils. The core thermocouple is the sense element for the PID controller, so the temperature at that point wants to remain constant as more and more core power is generated.

In order to keep the core sense element at a constant temperature power applied by the input source must be reduced. This power is supplied to the heating coils. Normally one would think that an equal amount of power would be reduced from the heating coil to match the new power generated within the core, but that is not the case.

The sense theromocouple is subject to an additional temperature rise due to core power flowing through the extra thermal resistance mentioned above. So, more power must be taken away from the coil heater than is generated within the core. Since both heat sources contribute directly to the outer tube heat flow, the net sum is reduced.

For this reason, the outer surface temperature should drop as more power is generated within the core as long as the PID controller does its job accurately. The heat flux that Jack reports is the source for the heat being radiated from the tube surface so it shows the same reduction behavior.

Jack’s device appears to be acting just as I have theorized. This is pretty solid proof that power is being generated within the core. We can attempt to calibrate the power if Jack has the data required, but I believe that he has already done that.

Jack,
As you know, MFMP is ordering SiC elements in bulk. It will be useful for you, no more heater burnouts, it can go up to 1500°C. Please contact Bob Greenyer if you’d like to have one or two of these.
Also consider getting type M and type B TCs for the interior. These won’t fail easily. Some type K’s can be fitted on cooler areas.
I think, the best method to fix the leak problem is to use Parkhomov type seal, epoxy with a longer tube.
It seems like you are very near to an irrefutable replication. Thanks for sharing the data.

Thanks Sanjeev. I did put in for 3 SiC elements, since burnout has been a problem in every experiment I have conducted. I’m honestly impressed that Rossi/IH devised a system that held up to high temperatures for so long.

I have considered other types of TCs, and really, we’re working at the edge of what the K types will handle. I have to repair the TC on the reaction tube after every two or three experiments by removing the end portion of the wire and re-welding the wires together.

I do hope I’m getting close to an irrefutable replication. Certainly seems to be getting closer to that.

I have a feeling Jack is simply working towards learning for himself, questioning, is this a fabrication coming from Rossi and others or is it an actual observable occurrence.

He seems to be at a point of reproducible discovery, and asking for review support from others to refine or educate in the lines of correct acceptable measurements.

He supports his own work financially and to ask for donations would surely net a time line and squeeze the enjoyment from experimental discovery.

The underlying mechanics of a LENR is next to further develop the repeatable experiments and producing more efficient reactions for comparison. When this happens there will many new opportunities to generate a cash flow for many workers of a new scientific trade.

Lastly, Jack seems to get it done and that’s important to the LENR discovery process, observable facts.

Yes, I’m not seeking money. If financial benefit results from the work eventually, that’s fine, but right now, I’m enjoying this work. I do want to see if truly convincing results can be achieved and I enjoy learning and the challenge. If God gives me a glimpse into a new area of physics, I will be very pleased, but if not, I’m pleased just exploring.

Fyodor, thank you and also for the link to Parkhomov’s talking about the clipped sine wave. The experiment described above used clipped sine waves plus PID control. I also have had promising results from pulsed DC (500hz).

I agree that these graphs are strange looking. Could you add time stamps to the data points to give an indication of how long in durations these excursions of excess heat flux were? If I’m reading the graph correctly there was a “burst” of heat and then the system wandered back to the “calibration” line with a second smaller “burst” enroute. The return to the calibration curve for heat flux seems to coincide with the attainment of your highest reaction temperature. Although the second heat burst didn’t correspond to a jump in reactor temperature. Was the reactor temp you are controlling one half of the delta T measurement? or was it a separate thermocouple location entirely?

If this data is an accurate measure of the systems heat flux, it is useful to mathematically do what a water bath would do for you and integrate the heat flux over time and compare to the integration of input power over time. ie. plot total heat moved vs watt-hours of input energy. The calibration should be a linear line. Excess heat should show up as a clear devating trend away from that calibration line. Same as Parkhomov’s water bath requiring a constant top up during calibration and an increased top up during excess heat events.

No problem. A proper analysis of any system during thermal transients is complicated. One way to get a “feel” for the thermal inertia in your system is to note the length of time your system takes to stabilize after a calibration power step. If your excess heat excursions are in the same order of time as this stabilization time, then we have to wonder if some of the apparent excess heat is a transient artifact.

In any case I would encourage you to continue your experiments and to continue sharing the raw data with the crowd. Very interesting stuff indeed.

It would be useful to have more information about this. Specifically:
how is the reactor heated?
what is the exact location of the heating elements relative to the thermocouple?
How is the thermocouple bonded to the tube? Can it move?
What are the surroundings to the reactor, and are they identical active vs control (if they heat up, or are reflective, the heat balance will alter)?
When the control (empty) reactor is tested is it filled with inert material which is as thermally conductive as the fuel mix?
Does the fuel mix thermal conductivity change when it sinters?
(The issue about thermal conductivity is relevant if there is a heat flux through the tube and some distance between parts of the heater and the thermocouple).

Finally what is the total mass of fuel – so we can check chemical enthalpy against total energy.

I’d expect there are chemical reactions that happen at higher temps as stuff melts, though I’d not be sure what.

The way to get clearer results would be to compare a control and active run, and then check that all the above variables are the same between the two runs.

A general point is that this type of calorimetry is inherently more difficult to validate than something measuring total heat out via liquid flow or even phase change (as Parkhomov’s first experiment). You can see this because of the 25% change in your two heat flux cal runs.

how is the reactor heated? Kanthal A1 wire wrapped around the tube and coated in furnace cement.
what is the exact location of the heating elements relative to the thermocouple? In the center of the heated area. A gap was left between winds of the heating element. The thermocouple was attached by furnace cement.
How is the thermocouple bonded to the tube? Can it move? See above. No.
What are the surroundings to the reactor, and are they identical active vs control (if they heat up, or are reflective, the heat balance will alter)? Surroundings are identical.
When the control (empty) reactor is tested is it filled with inert material which is as thermally conductive as the fuel mix? In this case, the re-calibration had a solid alumina rod inside of the alumina tube where the fuel would normally be.
Does the fuel mix thermal conductivity change when it sinters? That may matter for calculations involving the tube temperature, but I don’t see how that could affect the heat flux measurement. But to answer your question, I don’t know.
(The issue about thermal conductivity is relevant if there is a heat flux through the tube and some distance between parts of the heater and the thermocouple).

Finally what is the total mass of fuel – so we can check chemical enthalpy against total energy. – Sorry, I don’t have exact measurements on the amount of fuel. It is likely significantly less than used by Rossi/Parkhomov.

A general point is that this type of calorimetry is inherently more difficult to validate than something measuring total heat out via liquid flow or even phase change (as Parkhomov’s first experiment). You can see this because of the 25% change in your two heat flux cal runs.

Good to see your new results. I have a couple of questions. When you mention heat flux and plot same on chart you don’t have any units. By heat flux do you mean delta T across the conductive layer as in your previous setup? If so does this mean that when the excess heating occurred the delta T was higher for a given input power level?

Just a personal preference, I would have put input power on the X axis and had the delta T on the Y axis. That said I’m trying to understand the orange data points. Which order were they acquired? It seems that at the higher input power the delta T was aligned to the calibration curve. However at lower input power the delta T (excess heat) showed up. Was your control system trying to hold a temperature and dialed back the input power as the excess heat showed up?

The orange dots represent observations over a time period at which the PID controller was maintaining the set point temperature. It took less power to maintain higher temperatures for temperatures over 1100C.

Here is a chart with heat flux with a line drawn showing the order in which the observations were taken. I know it is quite strange.

Looks like it was ~2 to 2 1/2 hours on Phase I, and 3-4 hours on Phase 2. I didn’t have enough control in Phase I, so I shut it down to install a PID controller.

I have timestamps on the heat flux temperature data, but not on the power data since I had to manually write down the measurements every so often. The data for the reaction tube temperatures has big gaps since the upper end of the measurement system was ~1022C. I had to switch to making manual measurements and switch to having the PID controller decode the thermocouple measurements (since it goes up to 1275C).

I have since purchased a better thermocouple amplifier that works with Arduino and supports much higher temps.

The importance of a slow build up of temperature has been stressed by Alexander Parkhomov. The three stage decomposition of the LAH liberates the hydrogen and the gas needs time to enter the nickel. Some observers have claimed that faster heating protocols are very dangerous and can lead to explosions.

Normally, I use a lot longer buildup, but I didn’t have the control needed in the first phase of the experiment. Since it had gone up over 1275C during that phase, there was no reason to slow heat on the second heat-up.